- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34341-DB WA No. 373 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT APPEAL No. 373 OF 2024 (T-IT) BETWEEN: 1. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BENGALURU-1. 2. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU-3, BENGALURU. 3. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER ITO-WARD5(2)(3), BENGALURU. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI E. I. SANMATHI, SENIOR STANDING COUNSEL) AND: 1. SMT. P. JAISHREE, No.16/4, NH SCHOOL ROAD, V.V. PURAM, BENGALURU-560004. …RESPONDENT THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 09.01.2024 IN WP No-7660/2023 (T-IT) PASSED BY THE HON'BLE SINGLE JUDGE. Digitally signed by VALLI MARIMUTHU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34341-DB WA No. 373 of 2024 THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. ARAVIND) The Revenue has preferred this appeal under Section 4 of the High Court Act, 1961, challenging the order in W.P. No. 7660/2023 dated 09.01.2024. 2. The short question that arises for consideration is whether the respondent-assessee, having received compensation on the acquisition of land by the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board (hereinafter ‘KIADB’), is entitled to relief. 3. The assessee offered the compensation for tax and was also subjected to deduction of tax at source. Subsequently, the assessee filed an application under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, seeking a refund and condonation of delay. The said application was rejected. The learned Single Judge, in the impugned order, while following the judgment of - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34341-DB WA No. 373 of 2024 the Division Bench of this Court in Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited v. M/s. Sri Balaji Corporate Services and Others, in W.A. No. 890/2022, disposed of on 27.09.2023, allowed the writ petition and directed the Revenue to refund the entire tax collected. The Revenue, aggrieved by the said order, has preferred the present appeal. 4. Sri E.I. Sanmathi, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant-Revenue, submits that the order relied upon by the learned Single Judge has not attained finality and is presently in pending appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. He, therefore, contends that the learned Single Judge erred in following the judgment of the Division Bench in Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited (supra). 5. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the appeal papers. 6. The respondent-assessee received compensation on acquisition of land by KIADB and offered the same to tax. Subsequently, the assessee claimed a refund, which was rejected. In Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited (supra), the Division Bench of this Court held that, in view of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34341-DB WA No. 373 of 2024 Section 96 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, such compensation is exempt from income tax. In that view, the learned Single Judge, following the said judgment, directed the refund of the tax paid and TDS collected. 7. As the issue raised in this appeal is squarely covered by the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited (supra), the present appeal is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. All pending IAs' shall stand disposed of. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE VBS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40